Invalidity · first instance · 2018-08-28
000010559
Contested design: 002929778-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community design No 0029297780002 is declared invalid; the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0029297780002 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Mill International AS
Norway (NO)
Grini Naeringspark 12, 1361 Østerås, Norway
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Ningbo Heallux International Trading CO., LTD.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Wisdom Valley Technology Plaza, No. 18 keji Road, Cixi, Ningbo, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
Electric heaters
DM/083988-0001 · International Bulletin · disclosed 2014-10-10
Electric heaters
DM/083988-0002 · International Bulletin · disclosed 2014-10-10
Mill heater design SG2000MEC arranged horizontally
http://www.millheat.com/mill-floor/sg2000mec · millheat.com · disclosed 2016-12-01
Mill heater design SG2000LED arranged horizontally
http://www.millheat.com/mill-floor/sg2000led · millheat.com · disclosed 2016-12-01
Mill heater design AB-H1000DN arranged vertically
http://www.millheat.com/mill-oil/ab-h1000dn · millheat.com · disclosed 2016-12-01
Mill heater design AB-H1500DN arranged vertically
http://www.millheat.com/mill-oil/ab-h1500dn · millheat.com · disclosed 2016-12-01
Mill heater design AB-H2000DN arranged vertically
millheat.com · disclosed 2016-12-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying mainly on earlier international heater designs D1 and D2 and additional website disclosures D3 to D7.
- ›The holder argued the heater sector was crowded and that differences in the legs, display, knobs, grids and decoration bars gave the contested design a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed prior art, rejected D3 to D7 because they were shown only after the contested filing date, and found the novelty attack failed because the differences were not immaterial.
- ›The Division held that the many similarities in overall structure and proportions outweighed the differences, so the contested design lacked individual character and had to be invalidated.
Deciding panel
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000132264 vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD | 2026-05-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000131884 vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000130601 vs Zhou Canbin | 2026-01-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000127275 vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS" | 2025-09-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000128177 vs DECATHLON | 2025-08-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000126775 vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL | 2025-07-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000126715 | 2025-07-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000128196 vs Rafał Sowa | 2025-07-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |